Monday, October 27, 2014

Quote of the Day

"The problem with this new quote is that it borders on anti-democratic. I don’t care how many times you praise the Founding Fathers or talk about your love of the Constitution, if you think that the way to resolve policy differences or personal arguments with the government is not just by trying to get different people elected or waging a campaign to change the laws or filing suits in court, but through the use of violence against the government, you have announced that you have no commitment to democracy. In the American system, we don’t say that if the government enacts policies we don’t like, we’ll start killing people. It’s not clear that Ernst meant this, but it’s fair to ask her to explain what she did mean."

This country might resemble a Democracy now, but it was founded as a Constitutional Republic. There is a big difference.

The abrogation of the Tenth Amendment and state's rights, the popular election of US Senators and abuse by the federal government of the Commerce Clause was the start of our slide towards Democracy and mob rule.

States rights have not been abrogated. Federal rights have always trumped States rights, as the Constitution defines, and we fought a Civil War to defend. More rights are now federal rights, again as the Constitution defines. If gun ownership is a federal right, then federal regulations should guide gun laws. It should not matter which State you live in, all gun laws and regulations should be federal and the same throughout the land. There should be no violations of State to State transporting, buying or selling of guns, except those set be federal law. If I live in an open carry State, I should not be in violation if I happen to drive in to a State that is not.Of course my idea of federal gun laws would be a lot stricter than gun loons would agree with. With gun loons comparing Jeff Cooper to Thomas Jefferson, this is no time to start rewriting Constitutional law, or the Constitution. So we fight on State to State just like any other issue not enumerated by the Constitution (same sex marriage, etc.) but guns are enumerated by the Constitution and should be covered by federal regulations only.

I fear SSG "Tactical Reason" needs a refresher reading course. Waldman wrote: "Things like Barack Obama’s two elections, the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and a hundred other government actions are now routinely called “tyranny” and “fascism” by people just like Joni Ernst. "

Certainly, Presidents have been called all manner of names and pejoratives. But Waldman's point is the rightwing is now calling democratic legislation that passes judicial muster "tyranny" and "fascism."

The rightwing apparently prefers results that are arrived at by force.

"but guns are enumerated by the Constitution and should be covered by federal regulations only."

Exactly so, and the regulation is "Shall Not be INFRINGED". The Constitution also deals with those that have abused their rights and the rights of others by removing the rights of the abusers and be punished. If the Constitution was actually followed the way it was written then we wouldn't need 22,000 + gun laws in this country. The enumerated right is simple, the removal of that and other rights is equally as simple.

You miss the point, the only Constitution regulation is Shall Not Be Infringed which is exactly what the states are doing each in there own way. The other point is that the constitution already has remedy for law breakers that removes those rights.

As it is now, the states already have there own laws set, so they do indeed cherry pick their way in their infringement of the Constitution.

The second Civil Right, says Shall Not Be Infringed. That means not taxed, pay a fee for, license, permit, regulate or restrict that Civil Right. The Shall Not Be Infringed is for the individual, not collectivism, militia, military or law enforcement. It is the ONLY Civil Right that has the total protection from the governments taking, removing or in any way restricting that right.

Except for using that right against your fellow man in a criminal way and at that point you can have ALL your civil rights removed. Its in the constitution, its explained in there many ways.

There are NO government or Constitutional regulations to any of the Civil Rights enumerated, the only restrictions that exist is to the government itself. Civil Rights are protected for the people, not the government.

So NO, I do NOT want the states to cherry pick, its a violation of the Civil Rights of the people. That's why the federal government cant do it the way the states do, they would be in violation of Civil Rights laws. Not that they haven't tried, but they do get knocked down. The people in more and more states have been challenging the states laws in court over the second Civil Right and winning to regain those Rights that those states have been in violation for decades. Its a slow process and winning bits and pieces back all the time, but shouldn't have to, it should all be thrown out immediately.

Sometimes, not all. The Supreme Court has overturned there own decisions before. They may be the last word until either the case starts over again with different criteria or they decided to take another look at the laws and the constitution. Reversals have happened.

Judges that are appointed, not elected have a certain political bend to them. That causes problems in some of their decisions at times. Even elected judges follow the same, but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not supposed to bend and were/are meant to be followed directly. Even Laci has pointed out that the states are not allowed to ignore, restrict or infringe on peoples protected rights. Sometimes their decisions have done that and were reversed because their findings were in direct conflict of those rights.